The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: 12 on October 06, 2011, 06:18:14 PM
-
Judge: Americans do not have right to choose food (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=352249)
""There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued."
Interesting.
Your thoughts?
-
I can kind of see this and kind of can't.
The big issue is the operating diary farm. They don't just own a cow and milk it. They own several cows and they sell that milk.
On the other hand, it is their cow.
So essentially (and this may be horribly wrong), but that means that a corn farmer can't eat the organic corn that he doesn't sell but grows in his backyard?
Maybe... Are they drinking the pre-processed milk from the same cows they sell from or is this from one particular 'private cow' and are they members of a distributor co-op (in which case the milk isn't actually theirs as it is assumed sold as soon as it's out of the cow)? Also 'dipping into' pre-processed milk that is intended for sale is a violation of health department regulations, so... kinda get it from that angle as long this is a 'dipping into' situation and not a particular 'family cow'.
By 'unfettered access to foods of all kinds' does the judge mean the food we want or food that is regulated versus unregulated - as in we can't just run into a Jelly Belly factory and graze off of unfinished jelly beans (<- this is how I see the milk industry. It's so heavily regulated and controlled and processed it might as well not be a natural food anymore... unless you own a private cow.) but we're still welcome to those unregulated wild strawberries in our backyard?
So many questions...
-
I can kind of see this and kind of can't.
The big issue is the operating diary farm. They don't just own a cow and milk it. They own several cows and they sell that milk.
Wrong. They do NOT sell the milk. The only commerce involved is their boarding; and the fee for that.
If you owned a cow, I owned a cow, Min owned a cow, and Mr. Shifty owned a farm; and we
pay Mr. Shifty a boarding fee to board and feed our cows since we three don't have pastures; THAT is what they are doing. They then milk the cows, and drink their own milk. They aren't selling anything (except Mr.Shifty; who is selling his services as a boarder.)
The judge is basing his decision on the fact that the milk isn't pastuerized. He says it's somehow a public health issue. Also, the law there allegedly reads that if you own A cow, A sheep, or A goat; you are operating a "dairy farm".
It looks to me like abuse of the law to obtain revenue in the form of fees, licenses, taxes.
Not to mention that it smacks of yet another intrusion of government in people's lives.
-
Per Judge Fiedler:
"The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which means the following:
"(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
"(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
"(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
"(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power;
"(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
"(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs' conduct."
-
also, from here: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/10/06/judge-americans-dont-have-right-to-eat-drink-what-the-want/
“It’s a case of fundamental rights,” said Elizabeth Gamsky Rich, an attorney representing the group of farmers. “The plaintiffs are maintaining they have a right to own a cow; they have a right to consume the milk from that cow and that these are fundamental Constitutional rights.”
Rich told Fox News Radio they will appeal the judge’s ruling.
“The state of Wisconsin has said, ‘We regulate dairy heavily in this state. We have a statute and that statute governs everyone who owns a dairy farm – and if you own a cow or a sheep or a goat you have a dairy farm under this statute,’” she said.
-
Oh. Still doesn't shock me. Especially in a state like Wisconsin. It is true by the way, in the state of Wisconsin, if you own anything that gives milk, you own a dairy farm. The milk that you buy in the grocery store is more heavily regulated and processed than a bag of skittles. It's scary. It's like Orson Wells scary in some parts of the country.
-
I would like to point out that the females of all mammal species give milk.
-
I would like to point out that the females of all mammal species give milk.
And yet they tell me they're going to call the cops when I ask for some
-
Psst... Wunderkind... George Orwell...
-
Dude Orson Welles was pretty scary, he was like a big drunk boulder from that Indiana Jones movie
-
Psst... Wunderkind... George Orwell...
I have no idea what you're talking about. :roll:
Fuck mornings
-
I would like to point out that the females of all mammal species give milk.
Males can too, when given the proper supplements of oxytocin and lutenizing hormone.
-
We are all living on dairy farms. Every single one of us.
-
Fortunately, I don't live in a dairy state. NC barely cares if you have a cow, much less what you do with it. You can have your cow and milk it too.